Praying to Saints

[Zooey]

When I was a little girl, I would always want my grandmother to pray for me…
Actually, everybody she knew wanted my grandmother to pray for them; she was a real prayer warrior. Whatever she was doing would stop,& she would sit down & start praying. It was the most wonderful way to grow up.
But then, when I was 37 years old, my grandmother died…That wonderful sense of assurance that there was this person who would always stop everything to pray was gone…
But then I came to see that she was not gone, not really. The old tired body that had carried her through 90+ years of life had stopped working, but she wasn’t dead–she was more alive than she had ever been! And she didn’t need that “hot line to Heaven” that we used to tease her about; she was in Heaven, she was in the presence of the God she had loved & worshipped all of her days…
So, I can still ask her to pray for me, and she will still stop–just stop–and say, “Lord, we come before you today, humbly asking You to honor Your promise to hear us”…
That is what praying to saints is. It is not worship, it is not replacing God, not at all. It is going–running–to our fathers & mothers & sisters & brothers in the faith, and asking them, “Please, please, you pray!! God listens to you better!!”, just the same as I would ask my grandmother when I was a little girl.
God bless.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Zooey:

When I was a little girl, I would always want my grandmother to pray for me…
Actually, everybody she knew wanted my grandmother to pray for them; she was a real prayer warrior. Whatever she was doing would stop,& she would sit down & start praying. It was the most wonderful way to grow up.
But then, when I was 37 years old, my grandmother died…That wonderful sense of assurance that there was this person who would always stop everything to pray was gone…
But then I came to see that she was not gone, not really. The old tired body that had carried her through 90+ years of life had stopped working, but she wasn’t dead–she was more alive than she had ever been! And she didn’t need that “hot line to Heaven” that we used to tease her about; she was in Heaven, she was in the presence of the God she had loved & worshipped all of her days…
So, I can still ask her to pray for me, and she will still stop–just stop–and say, “Lord, we come before you today, humbly asking You to honor Your promise to hear us”…
That is what praying to saints is. It is not worship, it is not replacing God, not at all. It is going–running–to our fathers & mothers & sisters & brothers in the faith, and asking them, “Please, please, you pray!! God listens to you better!!”, just the same as I would ask my grandmother when I was a little girl.
God bless.

…taking things from a human angle, but also theologically to me anyway sound…a beautiful anecdote!..

…Regards, Barb

 

[Brendan]

Matt14:

Who was promised to be guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth?

And what would the the Pillar and Foundation of Truth that the Spirit would therefore lead them to ( 1 Tim 3:15)

 

[Matt14]

vern humphrey:

And the proof of this is that there is one Catholic Church and tens of thousands of Protestant sects.

I agree. But I’m not “protestant,” and I’m not a member of a denomination. I am totally against denominationalism. I believe there is one church of Christ, the one spoken of in the New Testament.

 

[Matt14]

Brendan:

And what would the the Pillar and Foundation of Truth that the Spirit would therefore lead them to ( 1 Tim 3:15)

The church is the “pillar and foundation” of the truth, not the truth itself. In other words, the church supports and is the basis of the truth. The inspired apostles produced the truth. What they taught orally was true, and what they wrote was true. However, we do not have a trustworthy accounting of exactly what those inspired men spoke, except for the writings of the New Testament.

I’m not here to argue with you guys, just letting you know why I believe what I believe.

 

[Brendan]

Matt14:

The church is the “pillar and foundation” of the truth, not the truth itself. In other words, the church supports and is the basis of the truth. The inspired apostles produced the truth. What they taught orally was true, and what they wrote was true. However, we do not have a trustworthy accounting of exactly what those inspired men spoke, except for the writings of the New Testament.

I’m not here to argue with you guys, just letting you know why I believe what I believe.

The Church itself is the trustworthy account.

If it failed to support the Truth of Oral Teaching, then by definition, it would not be the 'Foundation of Truth". That particular premise contradicts Scripture, and must therefore be invalid.

Therefore, it follows that the Church DID, in fact, sucessfully support and hold Truth, including what was orally taught by the Apostles.

 

[Matt14]

Brendan:

The Church itself is the trustworthy account.

If it failed to support the Truth of Oral Teaching, then by definition, it would not be the 'Foundation of Truth". That particular premise contradicts Scripture, and must therefore be invalid.

Therefore, it follows that the Church DID, in fact, sucessfully support and hold Truth, including what was orally taught by the Apostles.

It follows that the early church sucessfully did this. But it does not follow that what is called the Roman Catholic church today is the “early church” that safeguarded scripture. IMO, FWIW.

 

[Brendan]

Matt14:

It follows that the early church sucessfully did this. But it does not follow that what is called the Roman Catholic church today is the “early church” that safeguarded scripture. IMO, FWIW.

Well, since the Pillar and Truth must always be present for Truth to be present, it would follow that the Church of 1 Tim would always have existed since the time of Christ. Not only to pass the written Revelation of God, but the Oral one as well.

What other Church did you have in mind that would fit that criteria?

 

[E.E.N.S]

Matt14:

I agree. But I’m not “protestant,” and I’m not a member of a denomination. I am totally against denominationalism. I believe there is one church of Christ, the one spoken of in the New Testament.

Same here…there should only be One Church (minus the denominationalism, they are wounds in the Body of Christ for sure), and I fully believe that Church to be the one it was in the beginning…the Catholic Church (which would include all who have been baptized in the Trinitarian method as well.)

 

[E.E.N.S]

Matt14:

It follows that the early church sucessfully did this. But it does not follow that what is called the Roman Catholic church today is the “early church” that safeguarded scripture. IMO, FWIW.

Christ said that “the gates of hell will never prevail against [the Church]”

So what are you claiming exactly? (Do not confuse my question with an attack, I am simply giving you an opportunity to state what you believe and why…which Church and why.)

 

[Matt14]

Brendan:

Well, since the Pillar and Truth must always be present for Truth to be present, it would follow that the Church of 1 Tim would always have existed since the time of Christ. Not only to pass the written Revelation of God, but the Oral one as well.

What other Church did you have in mind that would fit that criteria?

Hi Brendan,

It would take many pages to discuss this topic fully. But since Paul warned about false teachers creeping in, how can we be sure that “oral tradition” is pure? We have written manuscripts from very early times. I can read Greek, and am learning Hebrew, so I do not have to depend on English translations. I can be sure tha the New Testament writings are authentic, and have not been distorted down through the ages.

But I cannot be assured that “oral tradition” has not been distorted.

The Jews were experts at memorization. By age 7 (or is it 12?) young boys have memorized the entire Torah.

Can we honestly say that gentiles placed as much emphasis on memorization?

In order for me to follow God as closely as I can, I need surety. I will not follow the precepts of men. And unless it could be proven that the oral tradition of the apostles has infalliably been handed down, knowing what we know about falliable men, then I must stick to the scriptures only.

I hope you understand what I am saying here.

 

[Matt14]

E.E.N.S.:

Same here…there should only be One Church (minus the denominationalism, they are wounds in the Body of Christ for sure), and I fully believe that Church to be the one it was in the beginning…the Catholic Church (which would include all who have been baptized in the Trinitarian method as well.)

Pretty much the same here. I believe that all those who have believed in Christ, repented of their wicked ways and confessed Christ before men, and subsequently been baptized into Christ for the remission of sins is a part of the Lord’s body, the church universal.

I believe there are members of this body who are worshipping inappropriately, and God the Almighty will judge this for Himself.

But I do believe that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

 

[Matt14]

E.E.N.S.:

Christ said that “the gates of hell will never prevail against [the Church]”

So what are you claiming exactly? (Do not confuse my question with an attack, I am simply giving you an opportunity to state what you believe and why…which Church and why.)

I believe that the early church went astray and turned into the Roman church, then split into the Roman and Greek churches. All the while, there was a remnant worshipping.

The church is a spiritual body. His kingdom is not of this earth. I believe all those who are scripturally baptized are members of His church.

And yes, the gates of hell have still not prevailed against it.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Matt14:

I believe that the early church went astray and turned into the Roman church, then split into the Roman and Greek churches. All the while, there was a remnant worshipping.​

Where do you see this? Certainly not in the lives of the great saints (who were 100% Catholic.) How do you come to this conclusion?

Scriptures show the importance of Christ’s Church, and Christ promised that it would be led by the Spirit of Truth;

Reading the writings of the early Church Fathers;

Reading the lives of the saints (as well as their own writings);

And history showing the lineage of successors to St. Peter;

…all these things give a great crediblity to the Catholic Church, I am wondering what leads you to think differently(?)

 

[scylla]

Why don’t you start a thread on this, this seems like an interesting topic to discuss.

I have heard of some people who hold to a belief in a remnant of true believers who have existed, which is the true Church.

So when did the Church majority apostacize and could you please point me to some early Christian writings illustrating this?

Maybe we should copy these posts into another thread since we are off topic, so feel free to copy and I will find the thread if you would like to discuss this.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Fidelis]

Matt14:

I believe that the early church went astray and turned into the Roman church, then split into the Roman and Greek churches. All the while, there was a remnant worshipping.

Would you mind providing a historical timeline or other documetary evidence that this is true? There is voluminous textual evidence both orthodox and heretical from that period–where are the writings from the so-called “remnant”? It should be easy enough to provide, unless you suscribe to a convinient “conspiracy” theory in which all traces of this “remnant” were wiped out. This smacks of the “Landmarkism” which some Baptists hold and which all serious Christians find laughable.

The church is a spiritual body. His kingdom is not of this earth. I believe all those who are scripturally baptized are members of His church.

Jesus said that a city built on a hill cannot be hid. He also said his kingdom is IN this world without being of it. There is NO provision in the Scriptures for an “invisible” Church of “true believers.”

BTW, since my previous questions went unanswered:

So, the next logical question is: upon what authority do you base those determinations on?

If it is on your private interpretation, what if it conflicts with someone elses private interpretation? Are you right and he’s wrong? Who’s to say?

Is your interpretation true for you, and his true for him? Is not truth objective?

I ask these questions in all sincerity; I’d really like to know how you would answer.

Once you take the road of private interpretation, numerous unresolvable rabbit-trails are bound to pop up.

…I’m taking that to mean they are unanswerable and my conclusion therefore validated.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Why don’t you start a thread on this, this seems like an interesting topic to discuss.

I have heard of some people who hold to a belief in a remnant of true believers who have existed, which is the true Church.

So when did the Church majority apostacize and could you please point me to some early Christian writings illustrating this?

Maybe we should copy these posts into another thread since we are off topic, so feel free to copy and I will find the thread if you would like to discuss this.

God Bless
Scylla

Done and done…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=980884#post980884

 

[MariaG]

Your faith seems to be strong enough to believe that God can lead you personally to all truth but not strong enough to believe that God can preserve a whole Church in all Truth.

My faith tells me God can keep the promises in His Bible for all time, not just during the early Church. Either God’s promises are true for all time, or they are lies. 1Tim3:15 among others is either true or a lie. Saying it once was true but now isn’t is saying God isn’t strong enough to keep His inspired words true for all time.

I can’t imagine a God who doens’t keep His word true for all time.

But I do know that if you truly seek Him with a heart for the truth no matter where that truth leads you, you are resting in Him.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[E.E.N.S]

jc91087:

How come Catholics pray to Saints?

Now back to original programming…

 

[Matt14]

E.E.N.S.:

Where do you see this? Certainly not in the lives of the great saints (who were 100% Catholic.) How do you come to this conclusion?

Scriptures show the importance of Christ’s Church, and Christ promised that it would be led by the Spirit of Truth;

Reading the writings of the early Church Fathers;

Reading the lives of the saints (as well as their own writings);

And history showing the lineage of successors to St. Peter;

…all these things give a great crediblity to the Catholic Church, I am wondering what leads you to think differently(?)

I can see everyone is getting defensive about this, so I don’t want to get into arguments. Someone asked my opinion, I gave it, now I’ve got several people chawing on my leg. :lol:

Let’s ask this question: Do you think the Roman Catholic church today is organized in the exact same way it was in, say, the first century?